3RU7AL for DebateArt.com President - Official

Author: 3RU7AL
Ethics
logiczombie
intp
Anarchy
GNOSTIC

Posts

Total: 211
#151
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@RationalMadman
Please list me examples or hint at moments where 3RU7AL has demonstrated decorum, respectfulness, and the initiative to cooperate with others.

Interesting enough, you engaged 3RU7AL in a discussion over the subject in the comments section. Even though you mocked him at times, he was unfailingly respectful. That was three years ago.

More recently:

When moderators were unwilling to publicly post their SPES proposal (presumably because of it's length) 3RU7AL didn't make a fuss over it. He continued to ask the mods respectfully in spite of their failed attempts. When drlebronski provided a link, 3RU7AL decided to post it in the forums for all the members to see.

And you can sift through the numerous exchanges he's had with other members, including yourself, and I challenge you to find an ad hominem in his statements.

Not to mention, his suggestions:

--> @MisterChris
Has anyone considered a "ban from debates and forums" only ?

That way, a "banned" user could still communicate with people they know here through the PM function, so at least we could get their side of the story and perhaps find out if they post on some other debate site or blog or discord or something if we find them interesting and wonder why they suddenly disappeared.

Perhaps we could allow them to send "friend requests" and then only allow them to PM with people who accept their "friend request".
Or his promoting the ideas of other members:

3RU7AL:
--> @Athias @secularmerlin
@oromagi

I have recommended:

  • auto-loss on first forfeit (to save voters time and effort)
  • setting debates for a minimum number of votes before closing- 3 seems reasonable
  • Make voting the price of  initiating a debate: something like writing 3 votes earns you 1 debate
This is the first I've seen of these proposals.

A resounding YES to ALL THREE.
Have you seen this ^^^ ??
3RU7AL has been doing it all, and not for the sake of an election. He's been participating this whole time, helping where he can.

The reason I am backing Airmax is that I believe that nobody else is going to help DART become less of an unpopular tiny place that nobody on the Internet except like 20 of us, care about. If Airmax stays true to his campaign promises, I will be ecstatic about the site's success.
To help a site become more popular, one first must understand the issues that are leading to its unpopularity. Who'd be more privy to that information: one who's been here the whole time and offering helpful suggestions where he can, or someone who has shown up after years of absence? Let me ask you this: you are intelligent enough to know that "campaign promises" are often grander than they are practical. In the event that things don't go their way, or certain hiccoughs arise, in whom would you place your confidence to persist and help to the extent of his capacity--the one who's always been here, or the one who left and came back?




#152
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@Wylted
I have no interest in indulging this conversation, here.
#153
Wylted
Wylted's avatar
Debates: 34
Posts: 5,754
3
4
11
Wylted's avatar
Wylted
3
4
11
-->
@Athias
Thought so :)
#154
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@Athias
Since Airmax1227 also barely had debates on DDO and has had absolutely none here, I can't compare along those lines.

I would say that 3RU7AL having this unique custom debate system that continually results in the other taking an easy win is problematic for debating integrity but since they're custom and thus unrated, I guess it doesn't matter.

That hardly shows teamwork though, I actually had better rapport with Type1 than 3RU7AL had and I defeated Type1 and even exposed him for being Sparrow.

3RU7AL doesn't have many people-skills that I can see, I just don't buy it.
#155
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@Athias
And you can sift through the numerous exchanges he's had with other members, including yourself, and I challenge you to find an ad hominem in his statements.
3RU7AL opts for sarcasm instead, such as in this thread where I cornered them and the reply is 'thank you for your opinion(s)' type stuff.
#156
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@3RU7AL
How are you going to make the rules quantifiable? Are you aware this is outside the scope of what a President on this website can do?
Topic's author
#157
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@RationalMadman
How are you going to make the rules quantifiable? Are you aware this is outside the scope of what a President on this website can do?
by asking the moderators to explain the principles on which they base their actions
#158
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit

Anyone voting 3RU7AL take a look how corrupt he'd want mods to become, he'd want shadowbans where the banned person posts and feels ignored but nobody is able to read their posts except the mods.
#159
Wylted
Wylted's avatar
Debates: 34
Posts: 5,754
3
4
11
Wylted's avatar
Wylted
3
4
11
-->
@3RU7AL
Here is an explanation of airmax's policies and I have no doubt he can achieve this more easily than you, which is why you are trying to ignore this thread

#160
Discipulus_Didicit
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 5,758
3
4
10
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Discipulus_Didicit
3
4
10
-->
@RationalMadman
Anyone voting 3RU7AL take a look how corrupt he'd want mods to become, he'd want shadowbans where the banned person posts and feels ignored but nobody is able to read their posts except the mods.
Not actually what the term shadow ban means as far as I know but okay.

I don't understand why someone would ever even bother to block someone if they knew they would still see that persons posts.
#161
Lunatic
Lunatic's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 8,951
3
3
6
Lunatic's avatar
Lunatic
3
3
6
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
now that RM and wylted have dropped, whats your position between airmax and 3RU7AL?
#162
Wylted
Wylted's avatar
Debates: 34
Posts: 5,754
3
4
11
Wylted's avatar
Wylted
3
4
11
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
Not actually what the term shadow ban means as far as I know but okay.
That's exactly how the teem is used on YouTube. It has allowed spam accounts to operate because the spam accounts think their posts can be seen. It discourages them from starting new accounts, once they are banned. 
Topic's author
#163
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@RationalMadman
giving each individual the ability to filter out content they personally find offensive is NOT "shadowbanning"

and giving mods an option to filter out content they deem "unfit" for public consumption is NO DIFFERENT FROM WHAT THEY ALREADY DO

the main difference here is that under my proposal - - people who are not easily offended could "uncheck" the OPTIONAL mod filter
#164
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
Not actually what the term shadow ban means as far as I know but okay.
Then educate yourself before discussing the meaning.
#165
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
Shadow banning, also called stealth banning, ghost banning or comment ghosting,[1] is the practice of blocking or partially blocking a user or their content from some areas of an online community in such a way that it will not be readily apparent to the user that they have been banned. For instance, shadow banned comments posted to a blog or media website will not be visible to other users accessing the site. Also, reducing the visibility, or impressions within the "main feed"

By partly concealing, or making a user's contributions invisible or less prominent to other members of the service, the hope may be that in the absence of reactions to their comments, the problematic or otherwise out-of-favour user will become bored or frustrated and leave the site, and that spammers and trolls will be discouraged to continue their unwanted behavior or create new accounts.[1][2][3]
#166
Discipulus_Didicit
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 5,758
3
4
10
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Discipulus_Didicit
3
4
10
-->
@RationalMadman
Right, so shadow banning means that the mods come in and make user A's comments invisible to users B-Z.

3RU7AL is saying user B can make user A's comments invisible to user B.

That's... very very different.
#167
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
Nope, read carefully:

the mods could make an OPTIONAL moderator-muted-list of users they deemed "inappropriate" so they would be invisible to the public and also invisible to all site members - UNLESS - site members un-checked the OPTIONAL moderator-muted-list

#168
Discipulus_Didicit
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 5,758
3
4
10
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Discipulus_Didicit
3
4
10
-->
@Wylted
That's exactly how the teem is used on YouTube.
See post 166, am I missing something? Two completely different things.

What 3RU7AL was suggesting is literally this. You can say it's a bad idea and I wouldn't argue that at all, but it's objectively not shadow banning.
#169
Discipulus_Didicit
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 5,758
3
4
10
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Discipulus_Didicit
3
4
10
-->
@Lunatic
now that RM and wylted have dropped, whats your position between airmax and 3RU7AL?
Mostly undecided. Max seemed pretty cool the few times I have talked to him before, his avatar creeps me out though.
#170
Wylted
Wylted's avatar
Debates: 34
Posts: 5,754
3
4
11
Wylted's avatar
Wylted
3
4
11
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
The term shadow banning has always been from the site owner making a person think their post is seen, when it only appears visible to them. He is using the term incorrectly if he means what I suggested.

The term was first made popular about 15 years ago and I have never seen it used to mean anything other than what I stated
#171
Discipulus_Didicit
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 5,758
3
4
10
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Discipulus_Didicit
3
4
10
-->
@RationalMadman
Nope, read carefully:

the mods could make an OPTIONAL moderator-muted-list of users they deemed "inappropriate" so they would be invisible to the public and also invisible to all site members - UNLESS - site members un-checked the OPTIONAL moderator-muted-list
I think one of us is glossing over the parts that are bolded and in ALL CAPS.
#172
Discipulus_Didicit
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 5,758
3
4
10
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Discipulus_Didicit
3
4
10
-->
@Wylted
He is using the term incorrectly if he means what I suggested.
RM is the one that said 3RU7AL was suggesting shadow bans, 3RU7AL and I both say that what 3RU7AL suggested was not shadow banning.
#173
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
Idk if it's a reading comprehension issue due to the bolding of a term 'optional' or what but nobody would opt-in to being shadowbanned.
#174
Discipulus_Didicit
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 5,758
3
4
10
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Discipulus_Didicit
3
4
10
-->
@RationalMadman
Example world where 3RU7AL's proposal goes into effect:

Users A-C are put on a list by mods.

Users D-F OPT IN to the list. They CANNOT see anything that users A-C say.

Users G-J OPT OUT of the list. They CAN see everything that users A-C say.

I don't like the idea, if it was put to a MEEP I would vote NO on it. I am not defending it in any way. That said, though I have my own criticisms of the idea that doesn't mean I won't point out when other people's criticisms are incorrect.
#175
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
I don't like the idea, if it was put to a MEEP I would vote NO on it. I am not defending it in any way. That said, though I have my own criticisms of the idea that doesn't mean I won't point out when other people's criticisms are incorrect.
Nothing you said proves it isn't shadowbanning or how cunning the wording of 'optional' was when literally nobody on the website would opt-in to being shadowbanned.
#176
Discipulus_Didicit
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 5,758
3
4
10
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Discipulus_Didicit
3
4
10
-->
@RationalMadman
Example world where 3RU7AL's proposal goes into effect (for your own understanding of the concept):

Users A-C are put on a list by mods.

Users D-F OPT IN to the list. They CANNOT see anything that users A-C say.

Users G-J OPT OUT of the list. They CAN see everything that users A-C say.

#177
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
Users A-C are put on a list by mods.
Which they don't opt-in to and which stops all their posts and threads being visible to all others whether signed-up to the site or not unless they manually work out how to make these shadowbanned users visible to them.
#178
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
Users D-F OPT IN to the list. They CANNOT see anything that users A-C say.
Wrong, everybody's defaulted in including people who aren't signed up to the website and can't opt-in.
#179
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
Users G-J OPT OUT of the list. They CAN see everything that users A-C say.
If they even work out that there's been a subtle censorship going on behind their backs the entire time that banned an ENTIRE USER from interacting with them without their foreknowledge.
#180
Discipulus_Didicit
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 5,758
3
4
10
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Discipulus_Didicit
3
4
10
-->
@RationalMadman
RM, read every line carefully before responding. This is very easy to understand but you have to read more than one line in order to do so.

EVERY.

LINE.

Example world where 3RU7AL's proposal goes into effect (for your own understanding of the concept):

Users A-C are put on a list by mods based on people the mods deem toxic to the community.

Users A-C ARE NOT given a choice about whether to be part of the program because they are on the list.

Users D-J ARE given a choice about whether to be part of the program because they are not on the list

Users D-F OPT IN to the program. They CANNOT see anything that users A-C say.

Users G-J OPT OUT of the program. They CAN see everything that users A-C say.

I don't like the idea, if it was put to a MEEP I would vote NO on it. I am not defending it in any way. That said, though I have my own criticisms of the idea that doesn't mean I won't point out when other people's criticisms are incorrect.